Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:26:06 +0200 From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 3:31 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > > > Actually, if there aren't yet archs lacking SYS_clone, this API > > regression may be a good argument not to drop SYS_clone on new archs > > yet until there's a way for new archs to get the same behavior > > (unspecified stack size). > > That is a good point, but it also appears that the behavior of > clone3() is unintentional > here, I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for clone() with > additional features. Mostly but not in all ways. We did decide it's ok to make API improvements that might break compatibility with legacy clone(). > > Not sure what the best fix for this is, as the check for size==0 was clearly > intentional, but seems to prevent this from working. A special flag to ignore > the size, or a magic size value like -1ull might work, but neither of them > is a great interface. Can someone explain the use-case in a bit more detail, please? If it is a legitimate use-case that callers need to be able to pass a stack and have no way of also passing a size then we should just remove the size == 0 check for all architectures that don't have a hard requirement on passing a size together with the stack pointer. Wdyt, Arnd?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.